CCP 10-10-2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~ e e e ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - SEPTEMBER 25, 2000 3 ~r I' ~ The applicant is proposing that two types of mechanical equipment be located on the ground on this property. There is no screening plan provided with this application but the applicant is willing to screen the units according to City Council recommendation. Planning Case #00-17a required the same applicants at the same address to screen their proposed outdoor units with cedar wood construction, painted to match the exterior of the building. Ms. Chaput stated that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Planning Case #00- 31, planned unit development amendment for 1887 Gateway Blvd. for the addition of a make-up air unit and a chiller condenser, as shown in the applicant's submittal, with the following conditions: 1. Screening of the make-up air unit and chiller condenser must be constructed of opaque colored webbed fencing (materials as agreed on with staff) of a color to match the building and built to a height equal to the equipment being screened. 2. Application for a building permit must be made, meeting all building and fire code regulations. Ms. Chaput presented photographs of opaque webbed fencing which was recommended by the Planning Commission. Councilmember Grant asked whether this type of fencing had been approved at 1987 Gateway Boulevard. Ms. Chaput stated the photographs were taken at 4300 Round Lake Boulevard, Mayor Probst expressed frustration that the two units in question are directly associated with another application only a few months ago. He asked whether the property owners knew in advance that the applications would be made separately and whether the screening requirements originally approved might have been different for purposes of unification. He asked whether the previously approved screening had been constructed. Ms. Chaput stated that the Planning Commission had discussed this and expressed concern that the applicant had not come forward initially with plans for all the screening required on site. Kelly Ortley, a representative of United Properties, stated that the height of the units in this planning case makes cedar fencing difficult. Ms. Chaput stated that the applicant had expressed a willingness to modify their original screening plan so that the other units match what is proposed in this planning case. She added that the applicant would have to go through the approval process again as the previous case was approved by the Council. Mayor Probst asked whether the previous case could be modified as a condition of approval for this case. Mr. Lynch stated that the Council could modify the conditions to reflect that change. Councilmember Grant stated that the opaque fencing in the photographs did not hide the equipment which it is intended to screen. He added he would wish the units to be screened more effectively. He asked whether the units could be painted to match the building. Mike Hill, Hood Flexible Packaging, stated he would prefer that option.